Posted
by
Soulskillon Friday August 17, 2012 @03:43PM
from the desperately-seeking-julian dept.

prakslash writes "The Sydney Morning Herald reports that diplomatic cables they obtained show the U.S. investigation into possible criminal conduct by Julian Assange has been ongoing for more than a year, despite denials by the U.S. State Department and the Australian Foreign Minister. Further, the Australian diplomats expect that the U.S. will seek to extradite Assange to the U.S. on charges including espionage and conspiracy relating to the release of classified information by WikiLeaks."

It has been shown time and time again, journalism is exempted from these kind of things. They are the recipients of information, not the ones giving out secrets.

Perhaps 20 years ago, people might have drawn a distinction between publishing on a computer network and publishing on paper, but today, those distinctions are muddy and in transition. (Before long, the ONLY way to keep publications secret will be to write them down and share them secretly.)

We have a nation of law enforcers who are not enforcing the law... they are enforcing the will of the leadership which is NOT the same thing. I think law enforcement needs to go back to enforcing the law and to remain WITHIN the law when doing so.

That is a very valid point. I'm sure his lawyer, once they determine he is in Guantanamo Bay and labeled and an "enemy combatant" would want to use that in his defense. Just have to wait for a few years to meet their client, a few more years of trials just to see if a foreigner held in a prison off of US soil is eligible for a trial in the US Judicial system, etc.

Yep welcome to the USSA comrade, where the only free men are the rich.

BTW I think every one of us that have said about a billion fucking times here that "Its not about rape, its about the USSA snatching his ass" deserves a fricking apology from all those "No its not, its about a crime, its raaape!" dumbasses, so line the hell up. Oh and WE TOLD YA SO!

Its pretty God damned sad when fricking Ecuador is the symbol of freedom and the USSA is the slimy country, but this ain't the country your grandparents fought for in WWII, its turned foul, the ground has gone sour thanks to a cabal of WallStreet, the MICs and PMCs, and the gov, all in bed together.

As it stands now, he is facing a serious sex-crimes investigation in Sweden, which he did to himself, by-the-way.

Would that be the investigation that was already conducted in Sweden while he was there? The investigation that was closed due to insufficient evidence or whatever and Assange given formal permission to leave?

Also, how can you be accused of a sex crime that you did to yourself? Is masturbation illegal in Sweden.

It seems pretty clear that the new investigator is receiving large sums of money from the US to keep this going. When it comes to Sweden the CIA are like kids in a candy shop. Every person they see t

It has been shown time and time again, journalism is exempted from these kind of things. They are the recipients of information, not the ones giving out secrets.

That's generally true, but then there is no protection for, say, breaking into an office and stealing documents in order to publish them. And there is a continuum between active law breaking of that sort, and completely passive receipt of unsolicited information. If I were Assange, I would certainly not want to visit the US to find out if some one of my many activities had pushed far enough along that continuum that they could make a criminal case against me.

True--as far as we know he wasn't at that end of the continuum. But my point was, I think we do not know that he was a completely passive recipient of unsolicited information. How far did he go in promoting the "theft" of the material that was disclosed? What actions did he take to encourage it? What direction did he provide as to selection of material?

There's a lot we don't know about how he operated, and there's plenty of gray area in which to look for plausible criminal charg

If you had read the article, you'd see that it is based on the Australians speculating. There's not much to quibble with the speculation (though the Slashdot title is misleading).

But you'll also note that they think an indictment would be based on conspiracy. And in that area, journalists can get nailed. If you are just receiving information, journalistic protections are fairly powerful. But if you work too closely with the informant, then conspiracy can raise its head.

Let me give two examples (hypothetical):

1) Manning sends Assange the files unsolicited. Assange would be protected.2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.

The first was just receiving information. The second crosses the line from just transferring information to other activities.

IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.

As such, it would be completely reasonable for the US to request his extradition to face charges of espionage here in the US. This would be complicated by several things:1) Whether the extradition treaty recognizes espionage as an extraditable offense - some

IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.

Just because it's a crime in the United States doesn't mean the US has jurisdiction over a foreigner on foreign soil. Possession of cannabis is a crime in the US. Are we going to start extraditing potheads from the Netherlands?

If you are not in a country, or a citizen of the country you are not obligated to obey that country's laws. Period.

IF Mr. Assange can be shown to have *solicited* the data from PFC Manning, then the charge is espionage, which IS a crime in the United States, regardless of where you happen to be sitting when you're collecting your data.

Does that mean that North Korea can demand to have the head of the CIA extradited to stand trial for espionage against North Korea?

The US generally cannot (despite what Hollywood and Slashdotters like to think) just go and grab folks from other sovereign countries without repercussions*. (They can request extradition, and governments have a deep interest in civilized cooperation. But that doesn't apply in this instance.)

If, on the other hand, Assange shows up on American soil, then the U.S. has jurisdiction. Just like the U.K. has jurisdiction while he's in the U.K., or Germany has jurisdicti

The US generally cannot (despite what Hollywood and Slashdotters like to think) just go and grab folks from other sovereign countries without repercussions*.

There are so many illegal actions (regarding International treaties) that my mind boggles that you call them no repercussions, From my own country (Germany), the USA has abducted people, put them into Guantanamo[sp?], and didn't bother at all about consequences

Many people have been illegally deported to foreign countries, by the USA, and have been tort

I'm saying if Assange offered any technical advice to Manning on how to secretly transfer information in order to hide Mannings involvement, that could fall under the area of conspiracy.

By that logic, notice on Wikileak's homepage suggesting the use of GnuPG/PGP would create a conspiracy. I think the US' authorities are out of control and desperately need to be taught a lesson in civility.

Under what theory of jurisprudence is this valid? Why should Assange be subject to US law any more than I am subject to Thai (the Thai king is an ugly idiot!) or Saudi (Muhammad was a murdering pedofile) law?

Shouldn't I be under extradition to Thailand or Saudi Arabia right now? If not, why not, and why doesn't the same reason apply to Assange?

if the *charge* is about sex and it had nothing to do with a US person or even on US soil, what the HELL is the US's interest in this?

again, I say, this does not pass the smell test.

its all about saving face and making an example, to deter others from exposing dirty laundry.

100% that's all this is about.

and that's why it should not be allowed, for the US to have him.

and don't get me wrong, I don't care that much about this particular guy. I don't know that much about him (and neither do you, really). but the fact that the US is going after him for exposing their lies and deceipt - THAT is a rallying cause. its not about the man.

Actually the charge is about allegedly not wanting to use a condom, and then breaking it intentionally when he was forced to wear one. It qualifies as "rape" here. None of the defendants actually wanted to press these charges, but the prosecutor did anyway. Or rather, someone did, and then the prosecutor dropped them, then it became a media thing, and for no apparent reason a new prosecutor stepped in and said of course they'd take it up again, and so on.

You're wrong. Articles about the cables like this one [guardian.co.uk] appeared months before the women even talked to the police. The three months after was just when they started releasing the cables.

has he actually been charged in sweden? I thought part of the big controversy was that he was not actually charged, they wanted to force him to go to sweeden to "question" him, even though he volunteered to host them, and answer any questions many, many times. They either want to extradite him, or do one heck of a "perp walk" on TV to shame him, and I don't think he's actually even charged, let alone proven guilty.

Under Swedish law, they cannot file formal charges in Sweden until they interview him. Whether or not that interview strictly needs to take place in Sweden is an open question - I've seen some lawyers claim it must, I've seen other lawyers claim there's no such law, but I've yet to see anything remotely like a definitive answer, either in the wording of the law, or specific precedents where it's been done before.

Though even if it isn't required to happen in Sweden, I would say that it's unwise to set a precedent in which you allow a suspect in a criminal matter to dictate the terms under which he'll agree to an interview about the charges. In any other situation, if a judge says, "return here for an interview," and the suspect says "yeah, no thanks, but you can totally send someone over here for a chat," the suspect will get slapped with contempt of court sanctions... allowing a suspect to undermine judicial authority like that (essentially, thumbing his nose at the Swedish legal system and saying "fuck off") can have other long-range implications that Sweden may not be willing to bear the cost of.

allowing a suspect to undermine judicial authority like that (essentially, thumbing his nose at the Swedish legal system and saying "fuck off") can have other long-range implications that Sweden may not be willing to bear the cost of.

Like Warren Anderson [wikipedia.org], who was charged with the culpable homicide of 8,000 people, left India and refused to come back until they said they wouldn't charge him, and who then jumped bail and left India after he was charged? Did the U.S. government respect the judicial authority of the Indian courts? No - it refused to extradite Anderson because they said there "wasn't enough evidence". And yet when the United States wanted to extradite bin Laden, and the government of Afghanistan requested evidence of his crimes, the U.S. government refused to provide it. When it comes to international politics and law, the U.S. is not afraid to apply double standards.

I've heard the same thing, and been unable to find any supporting documentation - I'd be happy to see information about it, and I've asked in a couple other Wikileaks/Assange articles posted here, but never seen any response.

I've also asked for confirmation of the meme that seems to be going around that "his accusers aren't even cooperating with police anymore," but nothing aside from a speculative article initially posted by Crikey.com has supported that argument.

I don't think that's a fair deal. Assange may have committed, at most, espionage against the US (which isn't a crime if he's not in the US, which he isn't), and sexual assault in Sweden. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, has proudly proclaimed on CNN that he committed crimes against humanity.

To whoever modded this flamebait: The accusation against Cheney is easy to sustain. Dick Cheney publicly proclaimed that he led the group that ordered waterboarding of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. American prosecutors defined waterboarding or the ordering of waterboarding of a prisoner to be a crime against humanity at the 1945 Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal.

Kill the messenger is wrong for the people that is target for the message, like the citizens of US and in general the rest of the world. Is not like they don't like the message, they already know it, just want to avoid that people know it, and warn others that could try to spread similar messages. What should be interesting is that there are US citizens that want Assagne in jail, the one that gave them some insight of what really do the people that they elected to represent them.

However, the Australian embassy in Washington reported in February that “the US investigation into possible criminal conduct by Mr Assange has been ongoing for more than a year”....

The released diplomatic cables also show that the Australian government considers the prospect of extradition sufficiently likely that, on direction from Canberra, Mr Beazley sought high level US advice on “the direction and likely outcome of the investigation” and “reiterated our request for early advice of any decision to indict or seek extradition of Mr Assange”.

So, in other words, asking for advanced warning if the US does even make plans to request extradition equates to "US intends to chase Assange"? Really? I mean I have no doubt that if the US thought it could bring charges against him that didn't possibly fall under First Amendment protection, it probably would, but that is the evidence you have? The Australian embassy asking for advanced warning? That's not evidence. That's barely above speculation. Actually, no, it is speculation.

"In a statement issued after the Ecuadorean decision to grant Mr Assange political asylum, Mr Hague said the UK was under a "binding obligation" to extradite him to Sweden."

They're willing to throw centuries of tradition on diplomatic immunity out the window because of a "binding obligation" to extradite him.

When he hasn't been charged, his accusers have left the country, and he sought (and was granted) permission to leave Sweden in the first place. If you don't smell something rotten here, you've got a clothespin over your nose...

Look, the UK has TWO treaty obligations that are in direct conflict here:

1) Their treaty with the other member states of the EU agreeing to be bound by the EAW extradition framework;2) Their diplomatic treaties with Ecuador;

Pretending that one "trumps" the other, or one is stronger than the other is stupid. The UK government decides which obligation serves its own interests better - other countries can lodge complaints, and make an argument at the UN or in the media... but what it boils down to is, the o

1) It would, as a matter of fact, be easier for the US to extradite from Sweden. There is a bilateral treaty between the US and Sweden that allows for extradition without consent from the UK or minimum tests. Read this [justice4assange.com] and this [justice4assange.com].
2) See above links.
3) Ecuador is NOT shielding Assange from prosecution from Sweden BUT from extradition and persecution by the US. Assange is willing to go to Sweden tomorrow to answer any Swedish charges if they can assure him he will not be handed to the Americans. They refuse to provide such an assurance. Look, Assange is not some ordinary mugger. He has done some significant things that have riled up the powers that be. If the suspect in your example was anything like Assange, I would be OK with it.

Do you really believe that diplomatic immunity was *intended* to be used in the way Ecuador is trying to use it, to shield an alleged criminal from prosecution? And would you be okay with that if, say, Mr. Assange got mugged, identified a suspect to the police, and then the suspect fled to the US embassy seeking asylum? Because if Ecuador can do it... why can't every other country use its diplomatic immunity in a disingenuous fashion, as well?

Anyone who is surprised by this (or who thinks that Sweden is not a part of it) is simply not paying attention.

But, but... the Swedish prosecutor has gone on record saying specifically that Sweden won't extradite Assange for torture or the death penalty.

Seriously, though, I hear Julian is going to be out front on Sunday. It would be quite an art project if two hundred other young clean-shaven thin white men with white wigs, white button-down shirts, gray wool pants, black dress shoes and socks, and Guy Fawkes masks all swarmed him and then got into passing cars.

- Be sure to catch the morning sun! Find a sunny window and soak in the nourishing strength of the rays. You don't want rickets!

- personal grooming improves self-esteem and keeps up morale. Just because you're stuck in a tiny room with few visitors doesn't mean you should let your hair grow out and start braiding. Beards are for nerds and mountain men. Buzz cut looks professional and sharp!

It seems that neither the general public nor the Assanage understand the game-plan. It is fairly easy. They intend on making him so paranoid that he will become a prisoner of his own making. Even if he manages to get out of London unmolested by the British police their security aparatus, and get to Ecuador -- he will be a wanted man across the entire Commonwealth spectrum, because in effect by leaving he will be breaking British law. That will effectively make him both a most wanted and persona-non-grata within much of the world. The only places where he will be able to travel freely would be within the new Bolivarian states, Russia and perhaps some of the Middle East.But even than he won't be able to travel freely at all, and perhaps will not be able to step out within the confines of his future place of living in Ecuador, because there will be many who would want to capture and deliver him to any British enclave. (in Americas think Stanley, or Georgetown, or even Ottawa).And the best part about it -- all Americans have to do is to continue denying that they are actively perusing him while giving subtle hints and "leaks" that they actually do.

It is quite unfortunate and demonstrates that US leaders still don't "get" it. They think that prosecuting Assange will have some kind of effect on Wikileaks when nothing could be further from the truth.... or they're just trying to get back at him out of spite (same reason they tortured Manning when he was obviously guilty and a simple court martial would have seen him put in prison for the rest of his life. Why degrade ourselves?)

The reason the US isn't explicitly asking for extradition is probably because we intend to perform an "extraordinary rendition" and snag him from Sweden illegally (but with Swedish cooperation), then imprison him in Gitmo forever without trial.

I wish I were joking. My grandfather volunteered for WWII; It makes me sad that we have thrown all the things he fought for in the trash can, first in a blind attempt to fight communism (when the prudent course was just to let it die under its own weight just like the USSR did), then in a blind attempt to fight a "war on drugs", and now in a blind attempt to fight a "war on terror".

Oh well... so many Americans are petty and FYGM these days. I guess it's no surprise that our politicians are too. When we had the Soviets to fight against it forced us to push all objections out of the way and cooperate for the common good. We managed to do such great and big things back then... We voted to tax ourselves to build the Interstate Highway system. Imagine proposing a tax to build a national "Internet Highway" today!The threat of communism put the Fear Of God(TM) into the rich and forced them to share the wealth, which in turn improved everyone's lives. Now it's all slipping away.

If he is in the UK (as he has been for some time), why wouldn't we just ask the UK to extradite him? That's the only thing that doesn't seem to add up when people yell, "The rape charge is just an excuse to extradite to the US"!

Is Sweden our extradition bitch or something? They say yes to every request we make???

This is disgusting. While I'm not Julian Assange's fanboi by any stretch of the imagination; I'd love to see the government that I grew up with grow a pair and at worst say "Well, I guess we're taking this one on the chin", he's to be tried in the country that he comitted the offense, and if he is serve time, to serve time in Australia under prisoner exchange.

At best, I'd rather like seeing Julia Gillard say "By your own rules, Freedom of Speech and press which you enforce on other countries is coming home to roost". Your country hasn't been de-stabilsed, nothing is that differernt. Sure, it's put a few noses out of joint, but why crucify a man over all this. There are many different elements like this in society, time to face up to them.

What I find intriguing is if Assange had published China state secrets and cables the US would be most likely be providing him with asylum and trumpeting "China oppression of free speech" and "China crackdown on international research dissidents", etc............
It is sad when international laws are broken by a state to make an example of one person with the intent to scare the rest of humanity into blind submission.

The question is answered in the second paragraph of your link:"Two judges sitting in London allowed an appeal against extradition by fugitive Shawn Sullivan, 43, after the American authorities refused to give an assurance that he would not be placed on a controversial sex offenders treatment programme in Minnesota."

Presumably, Sweden was able to provide sufficient guarantees to satisfy the UK that the Swedish government would not place Mr. Assange in a controversial sex offenders treatment program in Minnesota.

Add to that the fact that Sweden and UK are both signatories to the EAW framework as EU members, which streamlines the process for extradition between two EU member states, while the US hasn't yet been admitted to the EU, and you've got a fairly clear picture of why the UK would extradite Assange to Sweden, but decline to extradite Mr. Sullivan to the US.

That's nothing. I find it more telling that (according to what I read) they refused to guarantee that Assange won't be extradited to US. He asked if if Sweden guarantees that he will not be sent to US afterwards and Swedish side was unable to guarantee that.
They are really the exact opposite of subtle.

That's a technicality--the process is to talk to him and then make the accusation. They haven't charged him because of purely procedural reasons that are entirely his own doing. It's like trying to evade a process server.

its not RAPE as most of the world defines it. its the peculiar definition that sweden uses, that he's ONLY accused of.

and I'm sorry, I'll say this bluntly, with the full spectrum of all the 'bad shit' that one person can do to another, sweden's definition of 'rape' is not quite enough to justify all the hooplah that's being made of this. sure, he was a heel, perhaps (we really don't know, though, its a lot of he-said-she-said, really). but I'm not sure this is international extradition worthy.

people do a HELL of a lot worse and get away with it.

(like, say, many of the people mentioned in the leaked cables... julian may have fucked two women, but people in the cables have fucked far more and far worse. THIS is the issue, not julian.)

Yes it is. Among other things, he is a accused of having non-consensual sex with a sleeping woman. That is considered rape in the US, Australia, and all of the EU. The UK would not have extradited him if the actions he is accused of weren't a crime in the UK; read the Supreme Court's Extradition Judgement [supremecourt.gov.uk] for more details.

Firing squad is reserved for soliders. Hermann Goering requested death by firing squad, but they said no, you're too scummy to die like a soldier... so he suicided with cyanide instead.

Assange would be considered a spy so they'd probably hang him, like they did the Rosenbergs.

Except that they don't have much of a case against him, so they're probably just taking a wait-and-see attitude. If they have anything even remotely concrete to charge him with, they would've done it by now and extradited him from Britain already. It would be easier to get him from Britain which is a US lapdog, than Sweden, which is not so much.

Boy, if you think the Streisand Effect is bad, just wait for the Assange Effect. Making an example of him is about the worst thing they can do...
Protip: Assange in ur base, leakin' ur cables -- So, the people who are the leaks will just continue to leak, after having selected a new mouthpiece / shield. The next guy might not be as much of an asshole... From the US gov's perspective, they should be glad they didn't get someone who was harder to smear. Like some basement dwelling virgin who just wants to

Sweden is arguably more of a "US lapdog" in some aspects for a number of reasons. First of all, the massive financial pressure on politicians from piratebay case that has been on for years from US side has inherently made Swedish authorities easier to pressure. Then there's the technological and military cooperation, where Swedish national pride of having its own fighter jet is completely dependent on US goodwill - US licenses a lot of tech needed to build Gripen.

There are several other impacts as well, such as the pressure that came from "war on terror" and massively negative view Bush took on countries that chose to keep on being neutral, which made Sweden cave on several policies badly, one of them extraordinary rendition. In many ways GB has been protected by its sheer size from these, as while Downing Street has generally been keep on pleasing US, GB as a country is still big enough to resist significant amounts of financial and political pressure. Sweden's capacity to do the same is unfortunately much smaller.

Finally there's a matter of Sweden's own internal problems with rising wave of extremist feminism, which in this case was cleverly exploited by US.

Julian Assange is not a traitor. The Rosenbergs were. You cannot be a declared an open citizen of another country and be a "traitor" to another. What he did was not even a crime, and the notion of extradition is dubious.

This is the most insightful post I've read so far in this thread. Assange is not traitorous, because Assange is not a US citizen!
And he's a journalist, no matter what others may feel about his stories. Exposing this kind of crap is his job.

Assange would be considered a spy so they'd probably hang him, like they did the Rosenbergs.

According to an article in the New York Times (which I can't find right now, otherwise I'd link to it), nobody outside of the U.S. government/military has ever been prosecuted for publishing information leaked from the U.S. government/military. The prosecution have always backed down because they know they would have to argue that the First Amendment right to publish information that you have obtained about the government does not apply to whoever they're prosecuting, and that a jury may well decide that the First Amendment actually does matter after all. Numerous newpapers have published leaked information, and the New York Times and others actually conspired with Assange to publish the diplomatic cables etc. However, in Assange's case, it's possible that they just plan to put him in front of a military court with a predetermined judge and outcome.

Which might be funny if it hadn't already been beaten to death. There's actually a more subtle joke in there, which is that the Wikipedia basher, having smugly demonstrated his profound knowledge of the topic at hand with just a few keystrokes, never bothers to reveal his superior source of information.

Considering all the other news outlets in the US pretty much just say things I don't like...fox just balances them out by saying things I like even if those things aren't true....but is tough to have only one network that is willing to make things up to suit my views....

I don't understand how you think that most news orgainzations are just parroting the White House. The Obama administration regularly gets nocked by the mainstream press. Yes there are solidly liberal-leaning outlets out there (MSNBC being the largest), but that is not the mainstream press.

Fox News is the only news organization (that I am aware of) that has actually gone to court and testified under oath that their producers deliberatly wanted to lie to their viewers:

http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html

And it has been repeadly shown in studies that people who rely on Fox News have many of the important facts wrong about major events (e.g.: http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2012/confirmed/final.pdf), in most cases doing worse than people who did not regularly watch any news.

If people are getting their news only from sources that are openly (or near-openly) slanting their news, what hope does Democracy have? I will take an incompotent press (e.g.: much of mainstream media) long before I will accept one that is deliberatly biased.

I personally listen to NPR's news programs (very good, and very balanced), and leven that out with the Economist and an ocassional German news magazine. The Economist has a bit of an over-focus on pro-buisness, but they do try to be fair, and the German magazines often have a very different perspective than either the US or Brittish take.

That all depends on his role. Stealing the cables is illegal, but publishing them isn't. That, in short, is why Bradley Manning is in jail, and the editor of the New York Times is not. The question is, which role did Assange play?

If Bradley Manning planned the theft of the cables himself and then handed it off to Wikileaks, Assange is in the clear, just like the New York Times. But if Assange and Manning had a dialogue, and Assange guided or helped Manning in any way, Assange is guilty of espionage.

I think that if the U.S. had a strong case, Assange wouldn't be hanging out in the Ecuadorian embassy, instead the British would have rounded him up and sent him off the the U.S. for trial a long time ago. But Assange isn't stupid or complacent, he's smart and paranoid. So he did one of two things. Either (a) he helped Manning, but he did so in a way that was completely untraceable, or (b) he was smart about it, and said "whoa, hey dude, happy to help distribute this stuff but I'm not going to be involved in stealing anything."

I'd bet that Assange kept his hands clean. He's expecting the U.S. to come after him, and so if someone approaches him about the possibility of stealing American intelligence, he'll suspect a trap. Even once he's satisfied that it's not a trap, he'd see the risks posed by direct involvement. Another thing to keep in mind is that the U.S. has been leaning on Manning for a long time. You can bet the interrogators and prosecutors have told him that if he implicates Assange, they can get him a better deal. So Manning has told them Assange isn't involved- and either he's steel-willed and won't break, or he's being honest. Either way, the U.S. is screwed.

Each and every god damned one of us has a responsibility to identify what is ethical and what is not and call it out as such.

But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? â" in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849

Let's look at this another way. Government workers are employees of all taxpaying citizens. That's what a Republic is. If the IT department discovers an employee is watching porn at work, he should probably report it to their manager or to HR. That's what Assange is doing. The government has no more right to keep their actions secret from the citizens than you have to keep what you're doing at work secret from your boss.

Sorry, but our faith in the US government has been sufficiently shaken that we no longer trust them when they say, "These secrets are being kept to protect the US." Everything you said would be true...if the US were the bastion of freedom and of the enlightenment principles upon which it was founded. Instead, the US government has turned into a machine for inflating corporate profits at the expense of its own citizens and of citizens in other countries.

In one case, the actor posts the information to express to the world the tyranny under which they live to maybe just someday restore some kind of liberty in their lives, at great risk to their own life. In the other case the actor posts the information with the express purpose of shaming and harming the government that authored them.

Uh... both of those cases are valid for both Assange and the Syrian example. The Syrian is oppressed AND wants to shame/harm the tyrant. Same with Assange. You know, USA and corporations doing generally dickish moves on a global scale is a form of oppression. It's at a greater distance since it's their actions abroad, but they're still trying to impose their will on those that don't want it, and at the cost of others.

What would the position of the slashdotters be if Assange weren't leaking classified information, but, say, private information of EU citizens?

I think that's been done. Yeah, here we go:

In January 2011, Rudolf Elmer, a former Swiss banker, passed on data containing account details of 2,000 prominent people to Assange, who stated that the information will be vetted before being made publicly available at a later date.[168]

Soooo, while it's a violation of privacy, if it exposes dastardly people doing dastardly thing, then all the more power to him. Seriously, screw those bankers and tax dodgers. And specifically, all the more power to Rudolf Elmer, the guy who actually leaked this information. Wikileaks is just doing the dissemination and proofing. (and keeping the source a secret, but that ball has been dropped.) Also making sure that the data being leaked only punishes those who really deserve it. They're not in the business of giving out everyone's credit card numbers. Duh.
But if they did, sure, we'd be pissed. Well I would anyway. What can I say, I'd feel bad for those poor lonely Europeans. (But still, ew)

But governments have the right to their own secrets. Assange was knowingly distributing them with malice

Yes. And exposed some extremely bad activities and people in doing so. He trampled all over the privacy laws, which is a problem, to expose an even bigger problem.
I'm all for him being charged and punished for violating those privacy rights. As long as I could trust the people in power to not charge him with bullshit charges, indefinitely detain him, or kill him. Which, quite sadly, I cannot. There's rising amounts of proof that I can't trust those people not to be dicks.
So with that in mind, I'm perfectly fine with Assange doing what he can to keep out of the grasp of those who would almost assuredly not give him a fair trial.

Meanwhile, I pretty damn pissed that my government is being this vile. I would prefer that they acknowledge their mistakes, thank him for bringing them to light, and make some serious efforts to weed out the corruption and vileness in the system.

It's not about Assange. It's about human rights, yours, mine, anyone's. The question is: Is it ok for a government to pursue and prosecute a foreign national, a person, any person for speaking or repeating the truth simply because those truths are embarrassing to the government.

You should care about the rights of Assange only for as long as you care about your own.

No. People forget "insurance.aes256". This ~1 gb file probably contains dire unreleased secrets about various powerful entities, including the US government and individuals within it. If they assassinate Assange and/or the Wikileaks team, the keys to this blackmail file will be released. Those in power can't risk that happening, so they will hold their hand.